On 22/02/21 16:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 22.02.21 15:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 22/02/21 14:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Also, uncoordinated require is unused, and therefore uncoordinated
disable is also never going to block anything. Does it make sense to
keep it in the API?
Right, "ram_block_discard_require()" is not used yet. I am planning on
using it in virtio-balloon context at some point, but can remove it for
now to simplify.
ram_block_uncoordinated_discard_disable(), however, will block
virtio-balloon already via ram_block_discard_is_disabled(). (yes,
virtio-balloon is ugly)
Oops, I missed that API.
Does it make sense to turn the API inside out, with the
coordinated/uncoordinated choice as an argument and the start/finish
choice in the name?
enum {
RAM_DISCARD_ALLOW_COORDINATED = 1,
};
Any reason to go with an enum/flags for this case and not "bool
allow_coordinated" ?
I find it slightly easier to remember the meaning of true for "bool
coordinated" than for "bool allow_coordinated". I don't like the API
below that much, but having both RAM_DISCARD_ALLOW_COORDINATED for
disable/enable and RAM_DISCARD_SUPPORT_COORDINATED for start/finish
would be even uglier...
Paolo
bool ram_discard_disable(int flags, Error **errp);
void ram_discard_enable(int flags);
int ram_discard_start(bool coordinated, Error **errp);
void ram_discard_finish(bool coordinated);
Yeah, I tried to avoid boolean flags ;) Don't have a strong opinion. At
least we get shorter names.
